DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 12-20, the claims recite contingent limitations (e.g., “when at least one vehicle door is open” and “when no vehicle doors are open” in Claim 12, and “when the occupant count is inconsistent” in Claim 20). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 211.04 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “the results of the second operational mode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as referring to an occupant count result from the second operational mode.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the results of the second operational mode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as referring to an occupant count result from the second operational mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the limitation “when at least one vehicle door is open, … operate the seat occupancy sensor system according to the first operational mode which uses an occupant count to keep track of vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Yes, the limitation “when no vehicle doors are open, … operate the seat occupancy sensor system according to the second operational mode which detects and distinguishes vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin, wherein the occupant count from the first operational mode is used as an input to the second operational mode” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the limitation “at least one seat occupancy sensor configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals within a passenger cabin of the vehicle” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses an RF sensor in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “a seat occupancy control module in communication with the seat occupancy sensor, wherein the seat occupancy control module is configured to operate the seat occupancy sensor system in first and second operational modes” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitation “at least one seat occupancy sensor configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals within a passenger cabin of the vehicle” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses an RF sensor in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “a seat occupancy control module in communication with the seat occupancy sensor, wherein the seat occupancy control module is configured to operate the seat occupancy sensor system in first and second operational modes” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the limitation “receiving a door status signal … indicating a state of one or more vehicle door(s)” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Yes, the limitation “selecting a first operational mode or a second operational mode … based, at least partially, on the state of the vehicle door(s)” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Yes, the limitation “when at least one vehicle door is open, operating the seat occupancy sensor system according to the first operational mode by using an occupant count to keep track of vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Yes, the limitation “when no vehicle doors are open, operating the seat occupancy sensor system according to the second operational mode by detecting and distinguishing vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin, wherein the occupant count from the first operational mode is used as an input to the second operational mode” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the limitation “the system comprising at least one seat occupancy sensor configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals within a passenger cabin of the vehicle” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses an RF sensor in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “a seat occupancy control module in communication with the seat occupancy sensor” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitation “the system comprising at least one seat occupancy sensor configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals within a passenger cabin of the vehicle” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses an RF sensor in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
No, the limitation “a seat occupancy control module in communication with the seat occupancy sensor” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-20, the claims merely expand on the abstract ideas in the independent claims. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or
in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, 7, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (US 2022/0388525).
Regarding Claim 1, Roberts discloses:
A seat occupancy sensor system for a vehicle ([0003]: “number of occupants”), comprising:
at least one seat occupancy sensor configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals within a passenger cabin of the vehicle ([0003]: “radar sensor”); and
a seat occupancy control module in communication with the seat occupancy sensor ([0003]: “sensor control module”), wherein the seat occupancy control module is configured to operate the seat occupancy sensor system in first and second operational modes ([0003]: “preliminary scan”; “pre-movement scan”),
when at least one vehicle door is open, the seat occupancy control module is configured to operate the seat occupancy sensor system according to the first operational mode which uses an occupant count to keep track of vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin ([0003]: “while one or more doors of the vehicle are open, automatically control operation of the radar sensor to perform at least one preliminary scan of a portion of an interior of the vehicle”; “determine, using information acquired by the at least one preliminary scan of the vehicle interior, a number of occupants currently in the vehicle”; [0054]), and
when no vehicle doors are open, the seat occupancy control module is configured to operate the seat occupancy sensor system according to the second operational mode which detects and distinguishes vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin ([0003]: “repeat the preliminary scanning operation and the determination of the number of occupants until all doors of the vehicle are closed”; “The sensor control module is configured to determine, using information acquired by the pre-movement scan, if an excessive occupant condition exists in the vehicle interior.”; [0057]), wherein the occupant count from the first operational mode is used as an input to the second operational mode ([0102]: “The sensor control module 117 may then (in block 1036), using the number of occupants currently in the interior and the number of seats, determine of an excessive seat occupant condition exists.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Roberts discloses:
A method of using a seat occupancy sensor system for a vehicle, the system comprising at least one seat occupancy sensor configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals within a passenger cabin of the vehicle and a seat occupancy control module in communication with the seat occupancy sensor ([0003]: “radar sensor”; “sensor control module”), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a door status signal at the seat occupancy control module indicating a state of one or more vehicle door(s) ([0032]: “door sensors 185 configured to detect open and closed conditions of each vehicle door”; [0097]);
selecting a first operational mode or a second operational mode with the seat occupancy control module based, at least partially, on the state of the vehicle door(s) ([0003]: “preliminary scan”; “pre-movement scan”);
when at least one vehicle door is open, operating the seat occupancy sensor system according to the first operational mode by using an occupant count to keep track of vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin ([0003]: “while one or more doors of the vehicle are open, automatically control operation of the radar sensor to perform at least one preliminary scan of a portion of an interior of the vehicle”; “determine, using information acquired by the at least one preliminary scan of the vehicle interior, a number of occupants currently in the vehicle”; [0054]); and
when no vehicle doors are open, operating the seat occupancy sensor system according to the second operational mode by detecting and distinguishing vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin ([0003]: “repeat the preliminary scanning operation and the determination of the number of occupants until all doors of the vehicle are closed”; “The sensor control module is configured to determine, using information acquired by the pre-movement scan, if an excessive occupant condition exists in the vehicle interior.”; [0057]), wherein the occupant count from the first operational mode is used as an input to the second operational mode ([0102]: “The sensor control module 117 may then (in block 1036), using the number of occupants currently in the interior and the number of seats, determine of an excessive seat occupant condition exists.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Roberts discloses: wherein the seat occupancy control module is configured to receive a door status signal that indicates a state of one or more vehicle door(s) and to select between the first and second operational modes based, at least partially, on the state of the vehicle door(s) ([0032]: “door sensors 185 configured to detect open and closed conditions of each vehicle door”; [0097]: “When a vehicle door is opened, the sensor control module 117 may (in block 1014) control operation of the radar sensor to perform a preliminary scan of the vehicle interior.”; “In addition, the sensor control module 117 may (in block 1018) determine if all open vehicle door(s) are closed.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Roberts discloses: wherein the at least one seat occupancy sensor is a configurable RADAR sensor with one or more setting(s) that can be used to adjust range resolution, velocity resolution and/or angular resolution, and the seat occupancy control module is configured to adjust the setting(s) of the seat occupancy sensor based on the operational mode ([0033]: “more than one radar sensor may also be used in different sensor configurations (for example, to increase the resolution of the system).”; [0056]: “Preliminary scan(s) may be performed at a scanning rate commensurate with reliable detection of occupants entering and leaving the vehicle interior”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Roberts discloses: wherein, during the first operational mode when at least one vehicle door is open, the seat occupancy control module is configured to increase a velocity resolution of the seat occupancy sensor by adjusting one or more chirp parameter(s) and/or implementing one or more signal processing technique(s) in order to accurately keep track of the vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin ([0055]: “radar scans may be performed at one or more relatively higher scanning rates”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Roberts discloses: wherein, during the second operational mode when no vehicle doors are open, the seat occupancy control module is configured to increase a range resolution and/or an angular resolution of the seat occupancy sensor by adjusting one or more chirp parameter(s) and/or implementing one or more signal processing technique(s) in order to accurately detect and distinguish vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin ([0059]: “movement radar scans may be performed at a relatively higher scanning rate”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2022/0388525) in view of Peng (US 2021/0293948).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Roberts teaches: … during the first operational mode when at least one vehicle door is open, the seat occupancy control module … ([0003]; [0054]).
Roberts does not explicitly teach – but Peng teaches: wherein … the … control module is configured to adjust the one or more chirp parameter(s) by increasing a chirp duration to improve the accuracy of velocity measurements pertaining to the vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin (Peng [0055]: “transmission characteristics of the chirps 306 (e.g., bandwidth, center frequency, duration, and transmit power) can be tailored to achieve a particular detection range, range resolution, or Doppler coverage for detecting the living object 108.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roberts and configure the seat occupancy control module to increase a chirp duration to improve the accuracy of velocity measurements pertaining to the vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin, as taught by Peng. It is well-known in the art that increasing chirp duration improves velocity resolution. Modifying Roberts with the teachings of Peng comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Roberts teaches: … during the second operational mode when no vehicle doors are open, the seat occupancy control module … ([0003]; [0057]).
Roberts does not explicitly teach – but Peng teaches: wherein … the … control module is configured to adjust the one or more chirp parameter(s) by increasing a chirp bandwidth and/or a chirp rate to improve the accuracy of range measurements pertaining to seated vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin (Peng [0055]: “transmission characteristics of the chirps 306 (e.g., bandwidth, center frequency, duration, and transmit power) can be tailored to achieve a particular detection range, range resolution, or Doppler coverage for detecting the living object 108.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roberts and configure the seat occupancy control module to increase a chirp bandwidth and/or a chirp rate to improve the accuracy of range measurements pertaining to seated vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin, as taught by Peng. It is well-known in the art that increasing chirp bandwidth and/or rate improves range resolution. Modifying Roberts with the teachings of Peng comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, Roberts teaches: … during the second operational mode when no vehicle doors are open, the seat occupancy control module … ([0003]; [0057]).
Roberts does not explicitly teach – but Peng teaches: wherein … the … control module is configured to implement the following signal processing technique: digital beamforming to improve the accuracy of angular measurements pertaining to seated vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin (Peng [0042]: “To achieve object angular accuracies and angular resolutions, the receiving antenna elements can be used to generate hundreds of narrow steered beams with digital beamforming.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roberts and perform digital beamforming to improve the accuracy of angular measurements pertaining to seated vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin, as taught by Peng. It is well-known in the art that digital beamforming improves angular resolution. Modifying Roberts with the teachings of Peng comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2022/0388525) in view of Smith (US 6,798,374).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Roberts teaches: … during the first operational mode when at least one vehicle door is open, the seat occupancy control module … ([0003]; [0054]).
Roberts does not explicitly teach – but Smith teaches: wherein … the … control module is configured to implement one or more of the following signal processing parameter(s): increasing a fast Fourier transform (FFT) size and/or applying a windowing function to improve the accuracy of velocity measurements pertaining to the vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin (Smith [col. 5, lines 57-58]: “Increasing the FFT size can improve the frequency resolution of each target.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roberts and increasing a fast Fourier transform (FFT) size to improve the accuracy of velocity measurements pertaining to the vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin, as taught by Smith. Increasing the FFT size is beneficial for improving frequency resolution, thereby improving the accuracy of velocity measurements. Modifying Roberts with the teachings of Smith comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Roberts teaches: … during the second operational mode when no vehicle doors are open, the seat occupancy control module … ([0003]; [0057]).
Roberts does not explicitly teach – but Smith teaches: wherein … the … control module is configured to implement one or more of the following signal processing technique(s): applying pulse compression techniques to better utilize a chirp bandwidth, increasing a fast Fourier transform (FFT) size and/or applying a windowing function to improve the accuracy of range measurements pertaining to seated vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin (Smith [col. 5, lines 57-58]: “Increasing the FFT size can improve the frequency resolution of each target.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roberts and increasing a fast Fourier transform (FFT) size to improve the accuracy of velocity measurements pertaining to the vehicle occupants entering and/or exiting the passenger cabin, as taught by Smith. Increasing the FFT size is beneficial for improving frequency resolution, thereby improving the accuracy of velocity measurements. Modifying Roberts with the teachings of Smith comprises applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2022/0388525) in view of Christopher (US 2013/0093617).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, Roberts teaches: … the seat occupancy control module … ([0003]).
Roberts does not explicitly teach – but Christopher teaches: wherein the … control module is configured to use the occupant count from the first operational mode to verify the results of the second operational mode (Christopher [0005]: “first scan”; “consecutive scans”; “comparing the predicted positions and measured positions”; [0023]: “new measurements are compared with the predictions of previously (on past scans) formed tracks”), and to again detect and distinguish vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin when the occupant count is inconsistent with the results of the second operational mode (Christopher [0005]: “repeating (a)-(e) until a preselected process condition is met, and determining the true targets based on the results of the comparisons”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Roberts and use the occupant count from the first operational mode to verify the results of the second operational mode, and to again detect and distinguish vehicle occupants in the passenger cabin when the occupant count is inconsistent with the results of the second operational mode, as taught by Christopher. Using the results of the first mode to verify the results of the second mode, and performing an additional detection when the results do not agree is beneficial for resolving radar ambiguities (Christopher [0004-0005]). Modifying Roberts with the teachings of Christopher comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648